DUCKPOND

There are not any complicated rules for comments here for the very good reason that there are very few, but very much appreciated, comments. By the way, the rules that apply to comments apply equally to posts. I was passing by Tom Peters blog, and Cathy there advanced a rule that I thought was really appropriate, the living room rule. I know it is a virtual world, but sometimes we are communicating with other people. Sometimes this works, and that is the miracle of language. Sometimes it doesn’t and that is the problem of language.

As one does, on the spot I made up some other rules:

There are, it seems to me, at least two other possible rules that might apply in my limited universe: the seminar rule and the conversation rule. These boil down to quality of contribution and productive use of time.

The other rule, the respect rule, appreciation of difference, so allowing some flexibility, is perhaps a restatement of the living room rule.

Cathy elaborated on the living room rule as:

. . .don’t behave in any way you would not behave towards guests in your home.

You may, or may not, have some ideas about this subject, which you would like to share. The background to this set of ideas are the general concept developed, in the first instance, by Marshall Rosenberg of nonviolent communication, or compassionate listening. I don’t understand it either, but I thought I would try to learn about it by practicing the principles, and see how that went.

Marshall Rosenberg was interviewed for ABC’s PM on 26 August 2004, at the time of the Redfern Riots and the transcript of that interview is still available.There is another transcript with Marshall Rosenberg at the Buddhist Society. Nonviolence, despite the common assumption, is not pacificism. It is a purposeful, coherent alternative to violence with the belief that the longer terms outcomes will be more positive than resort to violence, and it requires if not more discipline, intelligence, courage and determination. So don’t judge too hard the nonviolent actor if they sometimes do not make the grade. It is a tough calling. I suppose too, the process is learning by doing, but that does not mean it should be necessary to keep on re-inventing the wheel.

All of this nonviolence stuff, of course, demands the most rigorous critique. Often when I talk to people about it, they tend to say things like that is a given in most major religious traditions, and many political theories. But what you see time and again, is that nonviolence gives way to violence. Part of this explanation is straightforward, the prevalence of fear and threat, the too ready tendency to dehumanize the other person or group, the resort to hierarchy in times of emergency, and then the maintenance of power relationships, and the re-emergence of the efficacy of violence as a useful tool, which can be made to work to that end. You will notice in this explanation I do not say that human beings are intrinsically violent, a contentious point to be resolved by science. If we are a violent species, we are the only violent species (think intentionality and cognitive processing).